What if the same thing is going on here... rather than electrons being "stored" in a capacitor, what is going on is that the atomic structure of the dielectric is just being reconfigured by the potential difference?

That's also the conventional explanation. The reconfigured charges (polarization) of the dielectric act to "absorb" some of the field, allowing even more to be input. But it eventually ALL comes back out.

That's not what I mean... nothing is getting "absorbed". It's like clothes in the washing machine. If the clothes are evenly distributed, when it hits the spin cycle it runs smooth. Yet, move the clothes to one side, and when it spins, there will be all sorts of rotational torque that makes the machine jump all over the room--yet exactly the same quantity of clothes is present. You didn't need to add some socks or remove a shirt to get the effect.

A conductive path creates the spin cycle; so when the capacitor is removed, the orientation is still there and will remain there, until it gets connected in a circuit and starts the "spin cycle", where the banging around redistributes the clothes until it runs smooth again (discharged).

I suppose I'm considering the capacitive effect as a redistribution of the ratio of kinetic to potential energy, to use mechanical terms. I don't have any answers right now, I'm just exploring conceptual possibilities because with the Reciprocal System knowledge, conventional electric and magnetic theory is really a jumbled mess. It's nice to have your feedback, because it makes me think about things in different ways. Before you can map something out, one must first explore the terrain. And as you found out, the previous pioneers didn't label things correctly!

I sometimes find it very helpful to use active imagination when exploring new concepts. It is a psychological technique that can give a different, and often a more clear, perspective on things. It also has the tendency to bring out the rules and limitations you use to evaluate your perception.

For example, pretend that you ARE an electron sitting in a copper conductor. What do you see around you?

From the reciprocal relationship, the "vacuum" of space is no-thing, so logically "time" is every-thing, something that appears solid to perception. Displacements from unity in space work towards creating solids, therefore displacements from unity in time work towards creating vacuums. So the rotational "time" of the atom is a series of bubbles in the solid, forming a network of caves in which the electron can roam about. This is the analog of why space can move through time, and vice versa--the solid space of the electron can move through the caves of time; the walls being the "temporal progression", the solid block that is sculpted.

So what happens when you're wandering these caves, and run into the dielectric of a capacitor?

First, consider what a dielectric is... an atomic structure with a large, spatial displacement. In other words, a cave-in--a BIG chunk of rock that blocks the tunnel so the electrons cannot move any further. If you want to store electrons somewhere, then you're going to need to find a large cave for you and your fellow electrons to crowd into. The dielectric doesn't have these characteristics.

Also consider the resistor. Take a typical, carbon resistor: 2-2-(4). That's a displacement of 4 units of time, and 4 units of space--minor cave-in, where half the passage is blocked, forcing you to crawl over it, but you can still get through.

Recalling this is the uncharged electron--electric current--what kind of environment would explain the capacitor? Can an uncharged electron be stored?

First point which has intrigued me is that the resistivity values have probably the biggest range among the physical quantities measured... 10-8 to 1017. That is nearly 25 orders of magnitude, which is the same as c3. The resistance seems to work as a net effect of all the three dimensions, similar to what you identified as the "real axis" of the three independent rotational motions.

Secondly, there are two ways in which the energy values can go negative, one is through potential energy and one is through "energy loss" by absorption. The imaginary numbers are used in the second case, but the first one doesn't use it, because it has an indirect measure which can be used to redistribute.

Gopi wrote:

Traditionally, the circuit is always compared to a mass on a spring. That way you get the 1/2's in place!

bperet wrote:

I liked Beaty's description of the capacitor being a wound-up spring--a property of the dielectric, not the electrons.

I suppose I'm considering the capacitive effect as a redistribution of the ratio of kinetic to potential energy, to use mechanical terms.

So can we take this one step further and call it/s as potential energy, and t/s as kinetic energy? What I am thinking is that the energy which is an inverse speed is like a diameter of the unit circle. Rotating this diameter has the line being on the real axis totally for an instant and on the imaginary axis for an instant (pure kinetic and potential respectively) and rest of the time, a distribution. Energy loss would correspond to the other two non representable (magnetic?) axes.

Quote:

If you want to store electrons somewhere, then you're going to need to find a large cave for you and your fellow electrons to crowd into. The dielectric doesn't have these characteristics.

So can the electrons take a "turn" into the magnetic dimension? Which is necessarily in time? So is the dielectric a way to block the straight path so that things can be stored in time, instead of space, making a smaller capacitor more powerful?

It appears that his "Dual Space" is just what we're calling "Counter Space" (Nick Thomas' term). His papers are fairly close to the same concepts Thomas uses in his book on Counterspace. But neither recognize the dimensionality of time nor the cosmic sector.

I have a bit of difficulty following some of his logic regarding permittivity... do you think you could summarize it, based on the RS2 view?